Weaponmaster training and the inevitably boring meta

[JaxbyJax.2170]

So... it just occurred to me that with weapons being opened up to everyone people are only going to use one set of weapons. The whimsy and novelty of trying out wacky weapon combos will inevitably wind down after about a week or so and then Snowcrows will swoop in with the meta and without locked weapons everyone will be running the exact same stuff regardless of loadout. Necro power build? Greatsword. Condi? Pistol/Torch. Ele? Sword/Warhorn... The only instances where I see this being limited are instances where the e-spec traitline drastically buffs the weapon in question like Deadeye Rifle, Holo sword, or Virtuoso Dagger, and I'm almost certain the balance of these is going to be shifted to accommodate widespread use. 

In opening up options people are going to ironically be shoehorned into a very small amount of boxes, where we used to have a whole bunch of viable playstyles there will only be a handful. The only thing that will matter is if you're power, condi, or support and this will effect your day to day experience in the game far more than your build will. Condi Harbinger played different than condi Scourge and even though the damage type was largely the same, you could switch up your playstyle if you got bored. This is not so if both run pistol/torch. Unless the balance team ensures that every weapon has a very similar efficacy window for every single spec (Which I highly doubt, not being rude but the balance patches have been chaotic to say the least), the meta will dictate how people play. Part of the appeal of e-specs in the first place was the promise of a new playstyle, with weapon master training we'll all end up running the same weapon skills if they happen to be the best if we're running any instanced or competitive content besides open-world or pvp meme-builds. 

Sure some professions have neglected weapons, even e-spec weapons. Scepter gets little use on mesmer, and daredevil staff seemed unpopular for a while. Weaponmaster training will be that phenomenon on a massive scale, and while e-spec mechanics will still provide interesting flavor and variation, the game will be largely homogenized. 

If, for some reason, traits remain as is with weapon buffs remaining with their parent e-spec, it soft locks people into using the weapon and begs the question of what the point of opening them up was in the first place other than giving a a small select group of professions (Ele, Engineer, etc...) some very very powerful tools. I had fun screwing around in the beta, but I have concerns. Maybe I'm thinking about this the wrong way, or there's something crucial that I've overlooked here but this seems not good and not fun in the long run.

Two years from now, when SoTo is old news and Weaponmaster training is not a shiny new toy and everyone is running the same weapons does that not feel incredibly boring to you?

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

10 minutes ago, JaxbyJax.2170 said:

In opening up options people are going to ironically be shoehorned into a very small amount of boxes

Alright so you know what, stop using this word. "homogenized." People don't know what it really means and honestly the fact that people keep saying this right now, in the wrong way, really just makes me angry. I said this on another thread...but I spent years studying this. I'm the one who brought this word into the forums, and there has been YEARS of arguing that homogenization was a problem, which I had to defend against from the hate mob...now that all of a sudden its a buzz word of the hate mob, used specifically on the WRONG thing and folks still don't want to listen, so I have every right to be mad about it.

Don't believe me? Just read my comment history, nearly every post I've ever made has been talking about those topics.

Not enough? Then read this thread, it was the first time I ever brought up the subject.

Ironically, everything that was spoken about in that thread had eventually come to pass today, and the discussion still holds up, despite being massively outdated.

Anyway, Opening options, is not homogenization. Stop saying that, it is wrong, you don't know what you are talking about, and I'll explain: it is mathematically different to homogenization (specifically called, the homogenization problem,) which is a paradox that arises from numerical balance changes. the paradox is actually established in that very same thread : That not even two skills can be balanced in principle through numerical nerf and buff procedures. Nerfs and buffs either make skills the same (homogenized) or not the same (un-balanaced) and those properties are dualistic...therefor you can not have a numerically balanced game, without also simultaneously taking away its diversity.

Opening options does the opposite; it increases the possibility space of the game exponentially, with every additional element...so long as those elements can interact with the other elements, and what the skills do matters...but ultimatly lead to a huge increase in diversity as a result, which will change through time. why that is, is  explained more deeply here in this thread, and in this thread. Long story short, it has to do with the fact that these two things exist in mathematically different spaces. Elements getting added into a game is an exponential growth relationship (not dual, but operating under a unified framework where heterogeneity and homogeneity are the same as a function of time), and numeric operations are just not, they are transitive..."locked in" so to speak to be dual properties of each other, because that's just how numerical operations work. 

There's a lot more to the story, but I'm trying not to sit here and type all night. If you really care about this game, you'd get knowledge on this stuff, what it means so that people can make informed postings about it and not just gamer thinkspeak...its the whole reason I brought the topic up to begin with all those years ago, to help people understand from a scientific/mathematical perspective about that problem.

[Alcatraznc.3869]

Regardless of the game, regardless of how good all weapon can be, there will always be a meta. There will always be that 1 setup that perform slightly better than the other. 

 

I dont exactly understand what point you're trying to make. Right now we have a meta, before we had a meta possibly different and after the expansion we will most likely have a new meta. But having a meta doesnt means that non meta setup or weapon are bad. Yeah sure it isnt the top tier DPS support or whatever but it doesnt has to be, if it is good enough to fill the job, if it isnt annoying and people enjoy playing it then no one will complain (except that minority that plays meta build or nothing).

[Sweetbread.3678]

4 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

I'm the one who brought this word into the forums

My eyes just rolled out of my head.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

12 minutes ago, Sweetbread.3678 said:

My eyes just rolled out of my head.

Ya right. how bout you take your eyes and make them useful, by checking my comment history...as if i couldn't have made it more obvious with all the links i put up. but this is what I'm talking about. "Gamers" don't do any real research at all.

btw I’m not claiming I invented the word (though I am claiming the formalism to the homogenization problem) I just brought this kind of language here (carried over from scientific/mathematical analysis) by simply talking about it in nearly every comment I’ve ever made. It wasn’t a good thing either, I was ridiculed for it because people kept thinking it was nonsense….still am to a large degree.

it’s ironic how history works though. Laugh it up…roll your eyes even…you got what you asked for.

Edited July 1, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Raarsi.6798]

1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

 I'm the one who brought this word into the forums

While I do agree with your "choice is an illusion" argument, you do realize that you could've made it a bit less pretentiously, right?

As for the main point, I feel like while the weaponmaster training ultimately showcases Anet questioning past standards that they might now perceive as arbitrary (which seems to be a thing for the whole expansion), it also comes with the "shiny object" effect of being a symptom to much larger problems with the game like the quickness/alacrity dilemma or Anet devs still struggling to find an adequate alternative to elite specs for something that can successfully cling players to expansions after launch.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

34 minutes ago, Raarsi.6798 said:

While I do agree with your "choice is an illusion" argument, you do realize that you could've made it a bit less pretentiously, right?

 

 

Ya, I get that man. My whole thing is that, out of everyone that actually should be mad about it (the misuse of such terms) it should be me. I took all the heat...walked through the fire and stepped on the coals... I know about it as much as I do because I put in the work to understand it (the homogenization problem) so that i could make meaningful statements about the topic for the wellbeing of the game. To see it so easily trashed by folks who didn't do anywhere near the same amount of effort, don't get to take that away from me for free.

 

Quote

As for the main point, I feel like while the weaponmaster training ultimately showcases Anet questioning past standards that they might now perceive as arbitrary (which seems to be a thing for the whole expansion),

 

This to me is a good thing, because Anet's past standards (and some of their current philosophies) were/are arbitrary. Not even from a subjective point of view...but that fundamentally, the procedure of trying to balance the game is just a procedure that can't be done without being completely arbitrary, and meaningless. A lot of my time has me been expressing just how meaningless those procedures are and that it's not like it was just an opinion... it was based on mathematical derivations.

My perspective has been that, to not fight against that force, but to embrace it...because it can't be fought. The paradox, for all intensive purposes is a law of nature. Whether Anet actually understands that paradox...well i'm doubtful because if they did, they would have a real balance philosophy that doesn't contradict itself.

 

Quote

it also comes with the "shiny object" effect of being a symptom to much larger problems with the game like the quickness/alacrity dilemma or Anet devs still struggling to find an adequate alternative to elite specs for something that can successfully cling players to expansions after launch.

Also true. It could be that nothing has really been learned, that really this is just a different way of supplanting the Espec model, for an unlock model to sell future expacs...Both are in some sense are equivalent procedures that yield diversity. But if nothing has been learned...then it's well...an illusion still. Selling Especs...or weapons for that matter that do the same thing as all the other weapons (Do some DPS and have a boon) is a homogenization issue. Their conflicting balance philosophy of trying to put alac and quickness on everything...the standardization of target caps before that, and the overall liquidation of unique effects...lead me to believe that things haven't really changed...but i will still encourage the good things (opening options is a good thing) because the alternative, is the bad things (trying to zero builds into uselessness) and i'd rather not see a reversion to that philosophy which, mathematically was the worst possible thing they could have done to the game. 

Cheers bud.

Edited July 1, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Drag You Down.2615]

1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Alright so you know what, stop using this word. "homogenized." People don't know what it really means and honestly the fact that people keep saying this right now, in the wrong way, really just makes me angry. I said this on another thread...but I spent years studying this. I'm the one who brought this word into the forums, and there has been YEARS of arguing that homogenization was a problem, which I had to defend against from the hate mob...now that all of a sudden its a buzz word of the hate mob, used specifically on the WRONG thing and folks still don't want to listen, so I have every right to be mad about it.

Don't believe me? Just read my comment history, nearly every post I've ever made has been talking about those topics.

Not enough? Then read this thread, it was the first time I ever brought up the subject.

Ironically, everything that was spoken about in that thread had eventually come to pass today, and the discussion still holds up, despite being massively outdated.

Anyway, Opening options, is not homogenization. Stop saying that, it is wrong, you don't know what you are talking about, and I'll explain: it is mathematically different to homogenization (specifically called, the homogenization problem,) which is a paradox that arises from numerical balance changes. the paradox is actually established in that very same thread : That not even two skills can be balanced in principle through numerical nerf and buff procedures. Nerfs and buffs either make skills the same (homogenized) or not the same (un-balanaced) and those properties are dualistic...therefor you can not have a numerically balanced game, without also simultaneously taking away its diversity.

Opening options does the opposite; it increases the possibility space of the game exponentially, with every additional element...so long as those elements can interact with the other elements, and what the skills do matters...but ultimatly lead to a huge increase in diversity as a result, which will change through time. why that is, is  explained more deeply here in this thread, and in this thread. Long story short, it has to do with the fact that these two things exist in mathematically different spaces. Elements getting added into a game is an exponential growth relationship (not dual, but operating under a unified framework where heterogeneity and homogeneity are the same as a function of time), and numeric operations are just not, they are transitive..."locked in" so to speak to be dual properties of each other, because that's just how numerical operations work. 

There's a lot more to the story, but I'm trying not to sit here and type all night. If you really care about this game, you'd get knowledge on this stuff, what it means so that people can make informed postings about it and not just gamer thinkspeak...its the whole reason I brought the topic up to begin with all those years ago, to help people understand from a scientific/mathematical perspective about that problem.

Thank you for clarify, really love your explanation here. 

Homogenization is often misunderstood. It does exist, but in this case, it can be an opportunity of going against it.

From a psychological point of view, we human beings want to find our own identities, find something that make us different with the others. And this naturally happens in the game just like in real life. That's why people hate homogenization so much, because that makes people think they are nothing but just a clone.

One thing this mastery can potentially bring is that it really creates more possibilities, which helps people to find a more unique and better build for themselves. I actually like this idea.

Another reason I like it is that the Elite Spec has some enhancement to the weapon, which makes me feel that I am forced to use that weapon if I play this spec. If I don't, I feel like I am playing it in a wrong way. And now, no e-spec weapons anymore, especially if they can remove the enhancement towards those weapons in Elite Spec, there will be no more shackles for me. (BUT WAIT, I DID'T SAY I WANT ALL SPECS TO BE THE SAME, OR NO ELITE SPECS!!!!!) Of course, this is just my PERSONAL feeling. People who is reading this but cannot relate to, feel free to be confused.

This is also about the relic and rune changes. I love this change, because it untied the stats and special effects. We currently have 99 rune sets, after that we will have... I don't know, be much much more options and combinations than that. This is literally heterogeneous. I don't know how dps think about that, but as a support player, I can't tell how happy I am. (BUT MY HAPPINESS IS RUINED BY THIS BALANCE PATCH!!!)

But what the author of this post was talking about is actually not about homogenization, it is about the unexpected design failure. The allowance of using too many weapons and weapons that are not designed for a mechanic may potentially make the things uncontrollable. I agree with this part of what he was saying. Controlling this requires a lot more professional thinking process, and also being insightful. It may need some experienced and skillful game designers to revise this. The current skill and balance designers are very incompetent, I don't believe they can handle this well. But if they do, this game will be very fun and brilliant.

For the problem of all the Elite specs being similar, the removal of their identity, I think a good designer can utilize this blank space purposefully to add something more iconic to each elite specs, once the link between them and weapons has been cleaned. Just like the theme of Firebrand does not have to be around axe, the theme of antient knowledge can be developed deeper, and it will reinforce its identity. But again, I just have no trust to current designer team, they are wasting the potential of this game.

 

[Drag You Down.2615]

1 hour ago, Raarsi.6798 said:

As for the main point, I feel like while the weaponmaster training ultimately showcases Anet questioning past standards that they might now perceive as arbitrary (which seems to be a thing for the whole expansion), it also comes with the "shiny object" effect of being a symptom to much larger problems with the game like the quickness/alacrity dilemma or Anet devs still struggling to find an adequate alternative to elite specs for something that can successfully cling players to expansions after launch.

I actually went to play ESO for several months last year, before EoD was launched, because I find the customization of this game should be freer. If you played ESO before, you know what I mean. I left ESO and came back to GW2 last October, because I do like the narrative, setting and values of this game more. I don't think they are questioning the past standards, they are just renewing the combat system.

And it makes sense to do so, because if we are living in the game, as if it is our real life and I am a soulbeast, my ability is to merge with my pet but I just want to use staff as my weapon to help my friend. Someone comes to me and say: "Hey, you cannot use that weapon, that is exclusively to Druid." I... I don't think I will say something nice to that person.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

12 minutes ago, Drag You Down.2615 said:

Thank you for clarify, really love your explanation here. 

Homogenization is often misunderstood. It does exist, but in this case, it can be an opportunity of going against it.

From a psychological point of view, we human beings want to find our own identities, find something that make us different with the others. And this naturally happens in the game just like in real life. That's why people hate homogenization so much, because that makes people think they are nothing but just a clone.

One thing this mastery can potentially bring is that it really creates more possibilities, which helps people to find a more unique and better build for themselves. I actually like this idea.

Another reason I like it is that the Elite Spec has some enhancement to the weapon, which makes me feel that I am forced to use that weapon if I play this spec. If I don't, I feel like I am playing it in a wrong way. And now, no e-spec weapons anymore, especially if they can remove the enhancement towards those weapons in Elite Spec, there will be no more shackles for me. (BUT WAIT, I DID'T SAY I WANT ALL SPECS TO BE THE SAME, OR NO ELITE SPECS!!!!!) Of course, this is just my PERSONAL feeling. People who is reading this but cannot relate to, feel free to be confused.

This is also about the relic and rune changes. I love this change, because it untied the stats and special effects. We currently have 99 rune sets, after that we will have... I don't know, be much much more options and combinations than that. This is literally heterogeneous. I don't know how dps think about that, but as a support player, I can't tell how happy I am. (BUT MY HAPPINESS IS RUINED BY THIS BALANCE PATCH!!!)

But what the author of this post was talking about is actually not about homogenization, it is about the unexpected design failure. The allowance of using too many weapons and weapons that are not designed for a mechanic may potentially make the things uncontrollable. I agree with this part of what he was saying. Controlling this requires a lot more professional thinking process, and also being insightful. It may need some experienced and skillful game designers to revise this. The current skill and balance designers are very incompetent, I don't believe they can handle this well. But if they do, this game will be very fun and brilliant.

For the problem of all the Elite specs being similar, the removal of their identity, I think a good designer can utilize this blank space purposefully to add something more iconic to each elite specs, once the link between them and weapons has been cleaned. Just like the theme of Firebrand does not have to be around axe, the theme of antient knowledge can be developed deeper, and it will reinforce its identity. But again, I just have no trust to current designer team, they are wasting the potential of this game.

 

Thanks man. Ya you get it completely. Everything you said here is spot on and said in a much nicer way.

I completely forgot about the runes but ya, it’s totally a move in the positive direction. it’s something we should have had a long time ago. I can see similar things happening with Sigils and Utilities. I think a large part of the success of the unlocking strata here is gonna come down exactly to the design and how novel their behaviors are. For sure good design is imperative to it all…and it’s really not much more complicated then that is it boils down to design.

 

cheers,

 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

6 hours ago, Drag You Down.2615 said:

We currently have 99 rune sets, after that we will have... I don't know, be much much more options and combinations than that. This is literally heterogeneous.

 

Also wanted to add to this, the number of combinations possible is 99X99, or 9801 possible combinations. The rune effect (of 99), can couple to a set of stats (99 assuming each stat set is unique.)

if they were to add 1st tier and 2nd tier effects it would be 99x99x99x99; 96,059,601 (96 million)

Edited July 1, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Drag You Down.2615]

4 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Thanks man. Ya you get it completely. Everything you said here is spot on and said in a much nicer way.

I completely forgot about the runes but ya, it’s totally a move in the positive direction. it’s something we should have had a long time ago. I can see similar things happening with Sigils and Utilities. I think a large part of the success of the unlocking strata here is gonna come down exactly to the design and how novel their behaviors are. For sure good design is imperative to it all…and it’s really not much more complicated then that is it boils down to design.

Also thank you for your reply.

Since some people seem confused, I would like to come with more statements. 

Homogenization is purely the possibility of being different with the others, not including how the bad design may cause some people to not choose a potential possibility. That is "letting you don't want to do something," not "you only have this option and you can only do this thing." So in this situation, you should not call it homogenization, because you do have options. The situation where you don't, check FF14 plz, the classes don't have any choices in terms of having new combinations within the classes, all classes are preset, but worse, they function in a very identical way.

And this leads to a different problem, which is not homogenization. One spec and another spec may have a thousand differences, their names are different, their visual effects are different, the ways they use their skills are different. But all of them lead to the same result. Such as Scourge is a barrier alac healer, Mech is a barrier alac healer, they both applies alac by applying barrier, they are overlapping in terms of functionality, and that is the only factor which gamers use to differentiate them. I think this is what most people mean, their functions are way too similar.

The way to prove they are different: Broom and Vacuum are both used for cleaning, are they the same? No! Only if broom can clean the floor like how vacuum works.

We have one barrier alac healer already we don't need another. BUT THIS IS NOT HOMOGENIZATION in this case, because their core mechanics are different, and the way to apply barrier are different. But I HATE IT TOO because this is a BAD DESIGN. Scourge is actually nothing like Mech, TBH, because playing Scourge is like a HELL while playing Mech is still "OK" now.

Also being different or the same can be greatly affected by the other factors. Such as Spector is also a barrier alac heal, never heard anyone saying Spector is like Mech. Because their functions and styles are different enough to establish their identities. I think that should be the direction where Scourge should change, is that making Scourge in the theme of sand magic and corruption even deeper. (WHICH THEY FAILED, I HATE IT!!!) But simply allow using weapons may not touch their functions. No matter how Untamed is using staff, Untamed will never be pve healer. Because there's nothing allow them to create burst heal. Staff indeed provides more options, but the most practical use will be staff 3, 4, 5. Escape, CC, and defense at the same time. Since the purposes are different, the results may be very different. And also, the ambush skills is really beautiful, that reinforced Untamed's identity by creating new interactions with new weapons.

My personal opinion, I don't want E-Spec to be disappeared, but removing the weapons from E-specs will:

1. add more spaces to traits and mechanics design to reinforce their theme, like time magic, toxic, ancient knowledge.

2. gaining more possibilities of interactions and combinations, reduce the limitation from specs, but emphasizing the diversity of PLAYERS. (The down side of this is, BALANCE TEAM MUST GO TO WORK, it can be truly chaotic.)

 

[Axelteas.7192]

What kept me interested in this game for 11 years when I was bored was creating new alters trying weird/rare/fun builds and make them work. Now with the removal of the weapon restriction opens up a window of more possibilities.

And you'e saying it will create a more "shoehorned" meta?

The majority of people isnt obsessed about being top DPS or playing the ultimate meta, in fact most casuals what care the most is having fun.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Axelteas.7192

[Gaiawolf.8261]

10 hours ago, JaxbyJax.2170 said:

So... it just occurred to me that with weapons being opened up to everyone people are only going to use one set of weapons. The whimsy and novelty of trying out wacky weapon combos will inevitably wind down after about a week or so and then Snowcrows will swoop in with the meta and without locked weapons everyone will be running the exact same stuff regardless of loadout. Necro power build? Greatsword. Condi? Pistol/Torch. Ele? Sword/Warhorn... The only instances where I see this being limited are instances where the e-spec traitline drastically buffs the weapon in question like Deadeye Rifle, Holo sword, or Virtuoso Dagger, and I'm almost certain the balance of these is going to be shifted to accommodate widespread use. 

In opening up options people are going to ironically be shoehorned into a very small amount of boxes, where we used to have a whole bunch of viable playstyles there will only be a handful. The only thing that will matter is if you're power, condi, or support and this will effect your day to day experience in the game far more than your build will. Condi Harbinger played different than condi Scourge and even though the damage type was largely the same, you could switch up your playstyle if you got bored. This is not so if both run pistol/torch. Unless the balance team ensures that every weapon has a very similar efficacy window for every single spec (Which I highly doubt, not being rude but the balance patches have been chaotic to say the least), the meta will dictate how people play. Part of the appeal of e-specs in the first place was the promise of a new playstyle, with weapon master training we'll all end up running the same weapon skills if they happen to be the best if we're running any instanced or competitive content besides open-world or pvp meme-builds. 

Sure some professions have neglected weapons, even e-spec weapons. Scepter gets little use on mesmer, and daredevil staff seemed unpopular for a while. Weaponmaster training will be that phenomenon on a massive scale, and while e-spec mechanics will still provide interesting flavor and variation, the game will be largely homogenized. 

If, for some reason, traits remain as is with weapon buffs remaining with their parent e-spec, it soft locks people into using the weapon and begs the question of what the point of opening them up was in the first place other than giving a a small select group of professions (Ele, Engineer, etc...) some very very powerful tools. I had fun screwing around in the beta, but I have concerns. Maybe I'm thinking about this the wrong way, or there's something crucial that I've overlooked here but this seems not good and not fun in the long run.

Two years from now, when SoTo is old news and Weaponmaster training is not a shiny new toy and everyone is running the same weapons does that not feel incredibly boring to you?

So all I have to do to stay fresh is not go to Snocrows? I can just use what feels best for my character concept, playstyle, situation, game mode,  and preference? Done. Good. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Gaiawolf.8261

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 hours ago, Drag You Down.2615 said:

Also thank you for your reply.

Since some people seem confused, I would like to come with more statements. 

 

IMO, They aren't confused, It's the same hatoraid juice the forum was drinking for the past 4 years. I'm us-to that. I just find it crazy because its not even that difficult to understand the concepts from an intuitive level, because it is intuitive...but people are just flat out too lazy to do any kind of real research, or have any kind of real discussion, or just want to stir in their own bias. If they are confused for realzies, it means they didn't work hard enough.

So, I explained these things already in the threads that I've linked. But I'll say them here for specificity, and to help add to your post that's more formal (and how it should really be spoken about and understood to avoid ambiguity) :

Homogenization means sameness/uniformity.

Heterogeneity means differentiation, differences.

Even though these words can be spoken casually in conversation, they are scientific concepts lifted specifically from scientific fields: thermodynamics, biology, complex systems, and they mean specific things; configurations of states that a system can be in. The larger the space of states, the more possible configurations that a system can be in. When the number of possible configurations gets larger, there is a significant bias towards the existence of more diverse states, than to homogenous states. A good example...you have the 26 letters of the alphabet. Out of the space of all possible permutation of letters only 26 of those are fully homogenous; AAAAAAAAA...A, BBBBBBBBB...B for example. But there are a near uncountable number of possible configurations that you could fit together where those letters are not the same. The space of states, with each additional letter, grows exponentially with the number of other combinations of letters.

Example

In a two letter alphabet of just A and B, there are 4 possible states AA, AB, BA, BB. 

In a three letter alphabet of A B and C, there are 27 possible states, AAA, AAB, AAC, ABA, ABB, ABC, BAA and so on...

There are only 3 homogenous states (AAA, BBB, CCC) 18 heterogenous states, and 6 equilibrium states where all the letters exist in equivalent amounts; ABC, ACB, BCA, BAC, CBA, CAB

In a four letter alphabet of ABCD, there are 256 possible states. 4 of them are homogenous, I think 24 equilibrium states, and the rest (228) are heterogenous states.

The larger this combination space gets, the more possible "words" a person can create...and that's how the alphabet works : We pull from the space of 26 letters, then string them along in sequence to provide what is near infinite number of possible words, sentences, paragraphs, books...to communicate, and express ideas.

Replace the word "letters" with "skills" and now you have the construct for what builds are in guild wars 2. Like language, we are just putting skills together to make meaningful builds, just as letters are put together, to make meaningful words.

There's different ways people have categorized these different states of systems, like in this one from mainstream physics but the most formalized, is described by Computer Scientist Stephan Wolfram with the The 4 Cellular Automata Classes

Class 1 = Homogenous

Class 2 = Patterned or Periodic

Class 3 = Random

Class 4 = Complex

Random in this case is heterogeneity and Class 4 Complex is where the interesting systems tend to exist, which is an intermediary state between the 3 classes.

Long story short : More combination space, means the ability to make more words, more builds and due to that mathematical fact above there will ALWAYS be a bias towards a more diverse game when that combination space grows...and each additional element explodes the size of that space by a huge factor. It should be mentioned, that these states...transition between each other and change with time. Systems evolve between different configurations of state, through the application of rules that govern their behavior, and therefor states of balance, or diversity of a system are not static...they evolve through time as a process of a computation taking place...permuting the elements, and exploring the space of words or skills until they've all been permuted. It's us the players that are doing this computation, figuring out what skills do and optimizing things as we humans like to do. This force is what brings us to a metagame, and so the process of collapsing to a meta game can't be stopped, it's embedded in us as humans. Therefor the logical conclusion is that like a maze, one needs to make the state-space complex enough so that it would take us a very long time, to compute the win-state of game...this is a design problem.

Edited July 1, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Jianyu.7065]

11 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Alright so you know what, stop using this word. "homogenized." People don't know what it really means and honestly the fact that people keep saying this right now, in the wrong way, really just makes me angry. I said this on another thread...but I spent years studying this. I'm the one who brought this word into the forums, and there has been YEARS of arguing that homogenization was a problem, which I had to defend against from the hate mob...now that all of a sudden its a buzz word of the hate mob, used specifically on the WRONG thing and folks still don't want to listen, so I have every right to be mad about it.

Don't believe me? Just read my comment history, nearly every post I've ever made has been talking about those topics.

Not enough? Then read this thread, it was the first time I ever brought up the subject.

Ironically, everything that was spoken about in that thread had eventually come to pass today, and the discussion still holds up, despite being massively outdated.

Anyway, Opening options, is not homogenization. Stop saying that, it is wrong, you don't know what you are talking about, and I'll explain: it is mathematically different to homogenization (specifically called, the homogenization problem,) which is a paradox that arises from numerical balance changes. the paradox is actually established in that very same thread : That not even two skills can be balanced in principle through numerical nerf and buff procedures. Nerfs and buffs either make skills the same (homogenized) or not the same (un-balanaced) and those properties are dualistic...therefor you can not have a numerically balanced game, without also simultaneously taking away its diversity.

Opening options does the opposite; it increases the possibility space of the game exponentially, with every additional element...so long as those elements can interact with the other elements, and what the skills do matters...but ultimatly lead to a huge increase in diversity as a result, which will change through time. why that is, is  explained more deeply here in this thread, and in this thread. Long story short, it has to do with the fact that these two things exist in mathematically different spaces. Elements getting added into a game is an exponential growth relationship (not dual, but operating under a unified framework where heterogeneity and homogeneity are the same as a function of time), and numeric operations are just not, they are transitive..."locked in" so to speak to be dual properties of each other, because that's just how numerical operations work. 

There's a lot more to the story, but I'm trying not to sit here and type all night. If you really care about this game, you'd get knowledge on this stuff, what it means so that people can make informed postings about it and not just gamer thinkspeak...its the whole reason I brought the topic up to begin with all those years ago, to help people understand from a scientific/mathematical perspective about that problem.

I dont know what it means, or why it's important to claim you're the first person to bring a word into a forum. It's difficult to take you seriously starting your point-making adventure there.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

17 minutes ago, Jianyu.7065 said:

...or why it's important

It's important because the WORD has baggage...science/math baggage that is very relevant to it's discussion...and without that baggage (the background knowledge for why the word is even used in the discussion to begin with) you will say the wrong things LIKE saying that opening options is a bad thing.

I also spent 4 years gathering the right ammunition to support these concepts so it doesn't even matter what people really think. I've condensed all of those years of research into words you can read in under about a minute, and just tailored to gw2 for its specific situation. But you don't have to hear it from me, hear it from smart game designers, or scientist themselves. 

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Batalix.2873]

In effect this will homogenize *to some extent*, and *only with respect to espec identity, not necessarily roles and gamefeel*. Because instead of 27 compartmentalized especs that can be differentiated and forced by design to be incomparable, now "builds" will tend to take the best from all three. We will have both meta and class fantasy be eroded *away* from twenty seven distinct jobs, and back toward something resembling the original nine profession classifications.

Maybe some people prefer that. I know historically we have had two camps that talk over each other's heads because they can't agree if "class" is defined at the profession level or the espec level. I.e. whether the especs are intended to be their own distinct job, or merely a flavor of a job.

However, that said, I do think there is a substantial threat toward role and gamefeel homogenization as well with this change. Even if not directly, breaking down the artificial barriers that construct the espec system and letting players "break" it more will likely bring up new "imbalances" the players want fixed and encourage the devs to break down the system even more. FFXIV is a PEAK example of this: there are so many really cool, distinct combat/class features that existed in Heavenward that have been progressively removed in pursuit of player demands and balancing for "viability".

The espec system had just been reaching maturity and a good equilibrium too, which is sad. I personally prefer measured restrictions that reinforce good job fantasy design rather than this free for all nonsense. Maybe if especs were given something more to help maintain their identities despite the loss of basically a third of what defined them, I would be less against this. But they didn't and now the feeling of considered, focused job fantasy design is just...less.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

1 hour ago, Batalix.2873 said:

In effect this will homogenize *to some extent*, and *only with respect to espec identity, not necessarily roles and gamefeel*. Because instead of 27 compartmentalized especs that can be differentiated and forced by design to be incomparable, now "builds" will tend to take the best from all three. We will have both meta and class fantasy be eroded *away* from twenty seven distinct jobs, and back toward something resembling the original nine profession classifications.

Gonna keep commenting on this thread till this nonsense stops.

No this is wrong. Opening options is not homogenization because it OPENS UP the possibility space of the set of the game. More possibility space = more diversity therefor it does NOT homogenize the game.

There is no debate here. Go and do the math yourself. opening up combinations leads to more build possibilities. The End.

Edited July 1, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Batalix.2873]

14 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Gonna keep commenting on this thread till this nonsense stops.

No this is wrong. Opening options is not homogenization because it OPENS UP the possibility space of the set of the game. More possibility space = more diversity therefor it does NOT homogenize the game.

There is no debate here. Go and do the math yourself. opening up combinations leads to more build possibilities. The End.

Your frame sucks and you are deliberately misunderstanding me. You can math all you want and it won't change the fact that *class identity*--NOT player-chosen permutations, but ACTUAL deliberate game design--is being broken down and homogenized across professions. Classic "when everyone's special, no one will be" problem.

Furthermore, I don't care about "options" if they are fairly empty and obviate each other. I care about a reasonable balancing of restrictions and choices so that I can feel like I am playing a carefully designed, considered job fantasy. This will be moving the game in precisely the opposite direction, where instead of the devs creating distinct fantasies/niches for players to engage with, they are absolving themselves of that responsibility in the hopes that players can Mario Maker their own class fantasies.

Obviously some players may want a game like this. I think it is not a great blueprint for an MMO and particularly this MMO. It is tearing down years of a good design that was already very creative, very distinct, and largely working as a matter of balance and preventing players from imposing too narrow a meta, in favor of a "kitten it" approach. The players have historically optimized (in some respects *homogenized*) the game into hellish metas in the past, and that was in spite of the game's design being distinctly against homogenization. It is going going to be worse from here on now that there are fewer dev-end restrictions on players' general nonconcern with fun and variety.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[Flapjackson.1596]

We must always be results-minded as players. The changes the devs make to the product ultimately only matter in regards to what happens, not what can theoretically happen. Theory is valuable for the devs because giving themselves more design space is useful. For the player, all that matters is what the actual reality is when changes are made.

Opening up option is theoretically flexible but as OP stated if every spec uses the same weapons because they are simply the best combination then we end up with a much more generic end result.

The solution should be to focus more on the unique aspects of the spec beyond their weapon though. Not all elite specs hold equally strong identities outside of their weapon (cata and vindi for example).

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

21 minutes ago, Batalix.2873 said:

I don't care about "options" if they are fairly empty and obviate each other.

And this is what you should care about. Options that are THE SAME is Homogenization and this is the homogenization problem…when you have 10 options that all do 100 damage…that’s a homogenization problem…not the fact that you just had 1 or 10 of said options. When the choices are an illusion is when it’s a problem…like mentioned earlier that problem exists in a different math space (the fact that numbers define what those options do are locked into it as a feature of being expressed as numbers)

Additionally: Guild Wars 1 was near completely free form. Class identity was for the most part illusory there...but classes still had their lore identity then did they not...through what their skills did...what their actual mechanics were. The amount of diversity in that game was sufficiently large...can you guess why? because build expression is made not by their illusory class identity, but through what builds players could make in the combination space. 

Edited July 1, 2023 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[otto.5684]

Based on initial testing, that does not seem to be the case. I have heard of some ele build, that was too strong. But nearly all meta builds remain unchanged. I was actually somewhat disappointed that this would not cause much change.

[itspomf.9523]

On 7/1/2023 at 9:48 AM, Gaiawolf.8261 said:

So all I have to do to stay fresh is not go to Snocrows? I can just use what feels best for my character concept, playstyle, situation, game mode,  and preference? Done. Good. 

Unfortunately, the balance team is heavily focused on raiding, which is what Snowcrows and others are known for.

So when the meta collapses down to an even more reductive version of the "best in slot" mentality we already see, no, unfortunately it means that these prevailing mindsets can and will alter the very makeup of the game and its balance, as we've seen for the past year or so.

And that means that persons like myself (and presumably you as well), who really only play open-world PvE, are still being held hostage by whatever someone with a training golem decides is good balance -- which I'm sure no one has forgotten that debacle over using completely artificially-inflated numbers in an equally synthetic environment as a platform for real gameplay analytics.

It's the same reason that Quickness and Alacrity have become both ubiquitous and expected in any and all group content, including fractals and dungeons (for the 5 or so people who still play the latter).

[Batalix.2873]

On 7/1/2023 at 10:52 AM, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

And this is what you should care about. Options that are THE SAME is Homogenization and this is the homogenization problem…when you have 10 options that all do 100 damage…that’s a homogenization problem…not the fact that you just had 1 or 10 of said options. When the choices are an illusion is when it’s a problem…like mentioned earlier that problem exists in a different math space (the fact that numbers define what those options do are locked into it as a feature of being expressed as numbers)

Additionally: Guild Wars 1 was near completely free form. Class identity was for the most part illusory there...but classes still had their lore identity then did they not...through what their skills did...what their actual mechanics were. The amount of diversity in that game was sufficiently large...can you guess why? because build expression is made not by their illusory class identity, but through what builds players could make in the combination space. 

Eh I still disagree. Class identity in GW2 since 2014 has been placing jobs into clear boxes (especs) and then managing a smaller subset of options for them to play around with. It has been about balancing the tension between job fantasy restrictions and buildcraft options. Which I generally enjoyed, apart from maybe core weapons needing a little love for a long time.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Batalix.2873